dono@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Don OConnell) (02/27/89)
>From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) >I've only been on this newsgroup for 5 months, but I've noticed that >there are a lot of people that read this group that don't have both an >ST and an IBM. Thus, either the ST or the IBM binary/source postings >are useless (depending on which machine you have). Therefore, I think >that it would be a good idea to split up comp.os.minix into 5 groups: This has been proposed several times (4 in my memory), and has been turned down for a variety of reasons. Most of the programs that I post, even though I use them on my ibm should compile and run on st's with minor or no changes. And the reverse is true, I have compiled the curses package that was posted for the st's with only minor changes. I am also looking into porting the screen package to run under the ega on my machine. It would be more of a problem to monitor many seperate groups for what i want, than just to hit 'n' for those articles that I don't want. The binaries are another matter, although I keep them stored, just in case I buy an st one of these days. Don O'Connell killer!dono
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (02/27/89)
Perhaps we could use a split for the binaries, at least. Ideally the group comp.os.minix should be devoted to discussing the system, not postings of actual executable files. Sources can generally be used on both the PC and the ST, so splitting there doesn't seem like a good idea either. This shapes up to: comp.binaries.minix.pc comp.binaries.minix.st comp.sources.minix The whole idea still seems a little strange to me; I guess I'm not used to seeing Unix-ish software distributed across Usenet in executable form. However, having a separate newsgroup for sources seems like a good thing. Since the current setup is unmoderated, I don't see any reason to drag a moderator into the picture... Although, at the back of my mind, I think it would be Real Nice when I saw postings go by, if they were stamped with an official seal of approval by ast (or, I suppose more often relevant to me, Johan Stevenson). That's probably too much to ask for in many cases, though. [And, in the case of essentials like Howard C Jonson's rs232 driver for the ST, even if it's not official yet, I'm going to use it because it's the only choice...] But anyway... I'm not about to call for votes either. Just making idle comments... -- -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!